Image 01 Image 03

Trump Pardons Two Ranchers Who Inspired 2016 Armed Protest in Oregon

Trump Pardons Two Ranchers Who Inspired 2016 Armed Protest in Oregon

“The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges.”

President Donald Trump has pardoned ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, the men who inspired the 2016 armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon, resulting in a stand-off between protestors and the federal government.

The men were convicted “in 2012 of intentionally and maliciously setting fires on public lands.”

Full statement from the White House:

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond.  The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land.  The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges.

At the Hammonds’ original sentencing, the judge noted that they are respected in the community and that imposing the mandatory minimum, 5-year prison sentence would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct.  As a result, the judge imposed significantly lesser sentences.  The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison.  This was unjust.

Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison.  Steven Hammond is 49 and has served approximately four years in prison.  They have also paid $400,000 to the United States to settle a related civil suit.  The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West.  Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.

WaPo explained what happened in January and February of 2016:

Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted in 2012 of intentionally and maliciously setting fires on public lands. The arson crime carried a minimum prison sentence of five years, but a sympathetic federal judge, on his last day before retirement, decided the penalty was too stiff and gave the father and son much lighter prison terms.

Prosecutors won an appeal and the Hammonds were resentenced in October 2015 to serve the mandatory minimum.

The decision sparked a protest from Ammon Bundy and dozens of others, who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near the Hammond ranch in southeastern Oregon from Jan. 2 to Feb. 11, 2016, complaining the Hammonds were victims of federal overreach.

The armed occupiers changed the refuge’s name to the Harney County Resource Center, reflecting their belief that the federal government has only a very limited right to own property within a state’s borders.

[Featured image via YouTube]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I give Trump credit for being willing to use his plenary power of pardon. Pardons were nearly non-existent (except for a spate of end of office pardons) under other Presidents who were too afraid of criticism.

buckeyeminuteman | July 10, 2018 at 12:11 pm

LaVoy Finicum unavailable for comment…

I can’t tell you how gratifying it was to read this news this morning. Out of the blue. No leaks.. and in fact, I betcha this gets little coverage. But this is HUGE for the BLM states, and the west, and sends a great message about our legal system and zealot federal prosecutors. Maybe they had no discretion? Or maybe the mindset during the Obama years was to crush the Bundy’s and these guys like gnats.

These pardons are just, IMO. As time passes, I think it’s worthwhile reflecting on the Obama era actions regarding Bundy and the Hammonds. This President is attempting to heal wounds and make things right. And the message of these pardons to the Interior Dept, the BLM agents and Fed Prosecutors out West should be loud and clear.

Am I reading too much into a kind and just act? Fair. But I choose to see a deeper message being sent, and I think it’s fair to think that folks out in BLM country will see this as a great turning point. We’ll see if this is indicative of better management going forward out west.

    Oregon Mike in reply to RobM. | July 10, 2018 at 12:39 pm

    RobM, I agree with your points.

    Interestingly, the better management you desire started to blossom in Harney County, Oregon, at least, back in 2014, long before the Bundy Bunch showed up. See: The Malheur occupation managed to temporarily derail these efforts, but they’ve been going strong ever since.

Come on, Mary. Dwight and Steven Hammond did not inspire the Malheur Refuge occupation. It was their imminent resentencing that inspired it.

The Hammonds themselves had nothing to do with the occupation. In fact, they distanced themselves from the Bundy Bunch, who showed up in Harney County uninvited and were asking that the Hammonds not report to prison. Dwight and Steven ignored them and have been at Terminal Island ever since.

    Tom Servo in reply to Oregon Mike. | July 10, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    I suspect this pardon is aimed directly at winning over Jon Tester’s seat in Montana.

    Edward in reply to Oregon Mike. | July 10, 2018 at 2:06 pm

    “Prosecutors won an appeal and the Hammonds were resentenced in October 2015 to serve the mandatory minimum.”

    “The decision* sparked a protest from Ammon Bundy and dozens of others, who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge…”

    Added for clarity: * US Attorney’s office decision to appeal and resentence

    I don’t know if Mary changed what she wrote as a result of your comment, or whether the above is what she wrote and you overlooked it. Either way, the Malheur occupation is noted as being linked to the appeal and resentencing of the Hammonds.

      Oregon Mike in reply to Edward. | July 10, 2018 at 5:03 pm

      Edward, all I’m saying is that the headline and the first sentence of the post are misleading. Dwight and Steven Hammond themselves did not inspire the occupation, in the sense that they influenced or promoted the occupation, or prompted or instigated it.

      The circumstances of their resentencing and their impending return to incarceration were the motivating factors for the Bundy Bunch, but the Hammonds uttered no word nor did anything to prompt or promote the occupation. That appears too far down in the article, in my opinion, to alleviate the taint of the headline and first sentence of the article. That’s all I’m saying.

      The Hammonds may have plenty to be pissed off about their treatment by the federal government, but they did not call up Ammon Bundy and ask him and his followers to invade Harney County and make their unfortunate circumstances the rallying point of Bundy’s cause.

        I hear ya Mike, but “inspire” doesn’t necessarily imply the Hammonds approved or even supported Bundy actions. Although perhaps “Bundys inspired by Hammonds” would have been more precise. Would that address your complaint?

I have not been following this case closely, but I have read that the pier we’re not maliciously setting fires, they were doing some sort of brush clearance which had previously been a regular practice. There is a type of brush clearance fire which is necessary to prevent larger more distractive fires. I believe they were ranchers on that land, and also owns land abutting it.
The whole federal lands out west situation is controversial, the federal government took a large areas of land is that in any other region would belong to the states.

    RobM in reply to beagleEar. | July 10, 2018 at 1:09 pm

    Yep… and the Feds used ” terrorism ” statues to get their convictions that carried mandatory sentencing. There is a move to exempt this happening again. To me, the whole thing came down to zealots at DOJ and BLM. Heavy-handed prosecution and conviction..

    The problem with ranching out west is, infractions are federal. Most of the rest of the country, a illegal burn would be a county or state issue. So the Feds want to punish these guys and charge under “new” terrorism statues. I’d be fine with a discussion about resolving all that Federal land out west… say to no more than 15% of any state. It’s 2018.. Time to turn the page.

      Mac45 in reply to RobM. | July 10, 2018 at 2:11 pm

      Infractions are only federal if they involve federal land or violate federal pollution laws. The problem in the West is that many ranchers, and small farmers, used public land to graze their cattle and even to farm. And, because it was “Free” there was no push to transfer ownership [sell] any of this land to private citizens, as there was in the Midwest and eastern Plains states. Well, things change and ranchers in the West found out that there was no such thing as a free lunch and that they did not own the public land that they were using. But, they still want something for nothing, or at least for less than they would have to pay to own or use the property if it was in private hands. many of these ranchers had the opportunity to buy this property from the government over the last 25 to 100 years and did not.

        forksdad in reply to Mac45. | July 10, 2018 at 5:09 pm

        My family lost lands to the feds more than once. So what makes it the feds’ land? Nothing. They just come and take it.

        The people who have been working it, sweating, bleeding, living and dying on the land they’re the stewards not some milk-blooded soft handed clerk or bureaucrat.

        Families have been working those parcels since before the BLM or DOR were even thought of.

          Milhouse in reply to forksdad. | July 11, 2018 at 1:34 am

          Unless you’re an American Indian, I’m calling BS on your claim. The USA can’t “just come and take” property without just compensation, and (unlike many local governments) it doesn’t take people’s land without some genuine public purpose. I defy you to cite one instance where this happened. If your family “lost” land to the feds, it’s because they were squatting on it in the first place and the rightful owner finally evicted them.

          forksdad in reply to forksdad. | July 13, 2018 at 2:52 pm

          Stampy you’re squatting in my jacket. Take it off. You’ll get a nickel for it. I don’t care if you brought your daughter into this world in that jacket, saw your mother out of this life or got married in that jacket. It’s mine you get a fair five cents.

          What gives me the right Stampy? I do, I’m bigger and stronger and way better at enforcing my will on people. You don’t like it. Sorry, you’ve been offered the five cents.

          You don’t like your new name? Sorry Stampy, I can’t pronounce whatever jabber you call yourself. From now on you’re Stampy. Unless you use Stampy, you can’t even claim your nickel.

          Are you getting the picture, Stampy?

    Mac45 in reply to beagleEar. | July 10, 2018 at 2:00 pm

    The It was proven in court that the Hammonds set the brush fire on PUBLIC land, in a effort to keep wild fires from impacting THEIR property. The fire that they set burned a significant amount of public grazing land. That is why they were convicted. The Obama DOJ hosed the Hammonds by charging them under the terrorism statute. This statute was not applicable and the judge knew it. But, the judge refused to overturn the jury verdict and acquit these two men. Instead, he sentenced them to no jail time, even though the minimum mandatory sentence called for 5 years. Then, he retired. The Obama DOJ appealed the sentencing and the sentence was overturned and the minimum mandatory was imposed.

    While the federal government can be faulted for overcharging these men and for ignoring the sentence for nearly 3 years before appealing it, one has to remember that these men were guilty of the act of setting a fire on public land without permit or authority. And, that a jury of their peers convicted them of committing that act. If it wasn’t for the Bundy case coming to a head in 2014, after nearly 20 years of litigation, the original Hammond sentence would likely have never been appealed. The actions which later ensued at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge were also grossly illegal.

    The Hammonds should never have been convicted of violating the terrorism statute and the Executive Clemency Grants are appropriate. But, these men are not innocent of wrongdoing.

      sheepgirl in reply to Mac45. | July 10, 2018 at 2:39 pm

      I think you are misinformed. No fires were set on public land, they burned onto public land. 1 acre and 140 acres respectively, that is not “significant”. It is the usual federal double standard.

        Milhouse in reply to sheepgirl. | July 10, 2018 at 3:35 pm

        That is what the defendants claimed. The evidence at trial showed otherwise. They set the fire on public land, and then when it went out of control they tried to cover it up by setting another one on their own land.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 6:36 pm

          This ignores a clear pattern of BLM trying to get rid of ranchers.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2018 at 1:35 am

          No, it doesn’t. That the BLM would like to get rid of the ranchers is neither here nor there. The government proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Hammonds’ claim to have started the fire on their own land was a lie.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | July 10, 2018 at 3:49 pm

          Here is a timeline showing other interactions the Hammonds had with the BLM.

          This was why the government proffered charges under the terrorism statute.

          Fen in reply to Mac45. | July 10, 2018 at 9:21 pm

          Mac, I’m getting from the AG article (via SheepGirl downthread) that the Hammonds had gov permission to set the fire. Is that true?

          “On the other side, you have a family who got permission to start a prescribed burn …”

          sheepgirl in reply to Mac45. | July 10, 2018 at 9:39 pm

          “We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather would be a problem.” Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region that very same day, but that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes the same information in a recording from that phone conversation.

          Fen in reply to Mac45. | July 10, 2018 at 9:43 pm

          I’m also getting conflicting reports about the motivations of the two proscribed burns.

          1st one claimed by defense to be burning of invasive juniper. We have similar issues on our Rosenberg Texas ranch. They will take over an entire pasture with overgrowth.

          2nd fire claimed by prosecution to cover up illegal kill of deer.

          I don’t doubt your intent is in good faith. And you arguments are, as usual, sound reasonable and convincing. I just don’t think any of us are getting the real story behind all this.

          Fen in reply to Mac45. | July 10, 2018 at 9:45 pm

          Edit, one proscribed burn not two. I don’t recall if the 2nd one was so.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | July 11, 2018 at 12:37 pm

          There has been a LOT of propaganda surrounding this case, as there was in the Bundy case, the Waco incident and the Ruby Ridge incident. And. much of it comes from anti-Federal government activists and publications.

          In the American Conservative Article, it was written to conform to the point of view that the Hammonds were angelic ranch owners who were being driven off their land by the evil federal government and, by its own admission came, largely, from Ammon Bundy’s blog, in 2015 [obviously an neutral source *overwhelming sarcasm warning*]. There was absolutely NO attempt at balance. The claim that the Hammonds had “permission” for a controlled burn, which, incidentally, would not allow them to lose control of that burn, comes from a family member. Now, it is a long standing rule of thumb that supportive testimony from a close family member is of reduced value to that of an non-involved third party or contradictory testimony from a close family member. See, the anti-government people believe that anything that the family says to support the innocence of the Hammonds is true and anything, from whatever source, which supports the guilt of the Hammonds is a lie. And, they are not going to change their minds.

          There was a long history between the Hammond family and the BLM. I posted a pretty good timeline for you all. And, while the federal authorities were not angelic in this relationship, neither were the Hammonds. If the Hammonds could have supported their ranching operation on their own property or that of their neighbors, without access to public lands, then most of this controversy would have been avoided. But, they couldn’t do that. And, that was the problem. The goals of the federal government, with regard to public land usage in their area had changed. And, those changes would not allow them to continue a profitable ranching operation which relied heavily upon access to public lands. What people seem to forget is that, in the middle of all of this, the Hammonds sold their ranch to a thrid party. When that third party could not make the mortgage payments, they regained control of the property and continued to butt heads with the BLM and FWC.

          I agree that the Hammonds should not have been charged under the terrorism law. But, they are not the innocent victims of an out-o-control federal bureaucracy.

      forksdad in reply to Mac45. | July 10, 2018 at 7:49 pm

      You mean the same feds who lied about snipers targeting the family and spying on them? You mean the same feds who sent in agent provocateur to incite them to crime? You mean the same feds who lied about too many things to bother keep going? The same ones who gunned down a man in cold blood? The same ones who are ‘investigating’ President Trump for Russian collusion those feds?

      Yeah, we’re all buying that story. Tell another one.

        Mac45 in reply to forksdad. | July 11, 2018 at 12:59 pm

        I am unaware of any “snipers” targeting the Hammond family. There were charges of that in the Bundy case, which were never proven. But, even if snipers were surveilling the property, this is not a big deal. LE snipers are simply LEOs who have additional training in field craft, surveillance and the application of force from a distance. They are used in both a surveillance role and as shooters. As no one was shot, it does not appear that these LEOs were utilized as snipers.

        Now, LaVoy Finicum committed suicide by cop. He and the other members of the party had been armed on previous occasions and there several firearms found in the vehicle after the take-down. All were wanted criminals, having engaged in the “occupation” of the wildlife refuge. Finicum fled from agents attempting to arrest him, crashed the vehicle, jumped out and charged agents, in an aggressive manner, while reaching toward or into his coat. And they shot him. He could have simply followed their instructions and surrendered and he would still be alive.

        Not everything is a government conspiracy.

    Milhouse in reply to beagleEar. | July 10, 2018 at 3:47 pm

    The federal government did not “take” anything. Most of the land in the West belonged to the federal government long before there were any states there; the USA acquired it from the Mexican government. When states were established, the USA kept its land because why should it have given it away?

    The thing is the BLM is supposed to manage this land for the public benefit. The problem is, which public? Traditionally that was defined as the public who use it, i.e. the ranchers. A few decades ago a new generation at BLM decided they should manage it for the whole nation, 99% of whom have no genuine interest in it but get warm fuzzies from knowing that it’s not being “exploited”. So it became hostile to the ranchers, started demanding that they pay the same rates as they would to private owners, and generally tried to encourage them to shut down.

    Legally the BLM is 100% in the right; morally is a different story.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2018 at 12:12 am

      Technically, the claim made is not that the feds “took” anything.

      The the claim is tripartite:
      1. Unconstitutional process during the admittance of some states due to unequal application of the law (in this case the Constitution’s rules for acquiring land, and jurisdiction over it, within a state). Many western states were permitted admission to the Union conditionally – statehood was confirmed only after they agreed to permit the federal government to maintain insular possessions within the new states’ borders – unlike other states that were admitted without such preconditions to the granting of statehood.
      2.The retention of federal insular possessions within certain states for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution (e.g. for the construction of forts, dockyards, arsenals, and other needful buildings).
      3. The acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction over lands within states without the permission required by the Constitution. Maintenance of Congress’ exclusive legislative jurisdiction over federal insular possessions within western states was made a precondition to admission to statehood, rather than acquired with permission from the states after statehood. (In order for Congress to gain some form of legislative jurisdiction over property acquired by the federal government within a state, the state must voluntarily cede the jurisdiction – it is not required to do so. If some level – there are about four – of jurisdiction is not ceded, the federal government has only the rights of any other property owner within the state. There are also forms of limited grants of jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdiction, and then, at the top rung, a cession to Congress of exclusive legislative jurisdiction, by which a state completely surrenders its jurisdiction over enforcement of its laws on the property.)

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 11, 2018 at 2:14 am

        DaveGinOly, your entire case is multiple layers of bullshit piled on each other.

        1. “Unconstitutional process during the admittance of some states due to unequal application of the law” makes no sense. Where in the constitution is there any requirement that potential states be treated equally? The admission of new states is entirely up to Congress, it does not have to admit any state if it doesn’t want to, and if it chooses to do so it is entitled to make whatever terms and conditions it likes.

        2. The constitution has no rules and no restrictions on federal acquisition or ownership of land within states. None. The federal government can acquire anything it likes, anywhere it likes, and doesn’t require anyone’s permission. Therefore no state ever “agreed to permit” the US to keep its land; if some of these states thought they were going to get all the federal land within them as a free gift, they found out otherwise. The acts admitting them to the union made it clear that the public lands were not going to be transferred as some sort of admission present.

        3. “Insular possessions” means island territories, such as Puerto Rico or American Samoa. It does not mean land in a state that the US happens to own.

        4. There is no such enumeration of purposes for which the US can own land in states. It can buy and hold land for any purpose it sees fit.

        5. The US does not have exclusive jurisdiction over most of its land. Exclusive jurisdiction is indeed limited by the constitution, and exists only in a few areas, always with the state’s permission and for the purpose of “forts, dockyards, arsenals, and other needful buildings”, but generally even those do not have exclusive federal jurisdiction. Pretty much the entire narrative you have in your item 3 is therefore fiction.

          Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2018 at 6:08 am

          “insular” in these instances referred to parcels of territory and material of interest to the security of the United States.

          As per the Annexation of Texas:

          “…admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas”

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 12, 2018 at 2:38 am

          That is not what “insular” means.

About time.

This was a malicious prosecution from the get-go and typical of BLM and USFS bullying intended to punish rural “deplorables” for offending the tender sensibilities of college-educated enviro-crats that infest these agencies.

reflecting their belief that the federal government has only a very limited right to own property within a state’s borders.

This is the kooky belief that made the Bundy-led gang decide to invade property that without question belongs to the USA, is nowhere near the Hammond ranch, and in which the Hammonds had no interest.

To the best of my knowledge the Hammonds themselves do not subscribe to this theory.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2018 at 12:25 am

    Do your homework, Milhouse. A simple Google search or two would reveal that there exists much scholarly legal commentary on the illegality/unconstitutionality of much federal land ownership and the way it was acquired. Certainly, there is little in the way of federal jurisprudence that agrees with the position, but one wouldn’t necessarily expect the federal courts to undo over a century and a half of illegal land acquisition by the federal government.

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 11, 2018 at 2:16 am

      There is no such “scholarly legal commentary”, any more than there is on the significance of gold fringe on courtroom flags, or other kooky beliefs of the “sovereign citizen” movement. The crazed publications of these people is not legal scholarship.

        Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2018 at 5:16 am

        Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding

        University of Colorado Law Review (2005)

          Milhouse in reply to Fen. | July 12, 2018 at 9:57 am

          I read it, and am not impressed. He doesn’t even argue that the constitution prohibits the US from owning land; his argument is merely that the “spirit of the constitution” is against its keeping so much land for so long.

          Interestingly, he says it would be completely unconstitutional for the US to give the land away to the states where it happens to be located, as most proponents of this theory insist. Nor could the US give it away to anyone else. Rather, he says the US should have sold off of most of its holdings that are surplus to requirements, as soon as enough of a market developed to make it worth doing so.

          As a matter of policy I agree 100%; private ownership should be the preferred model for all property, and government ownership (at any level of government) should have to be justified by some specific reason why the government needs it. But the idea that some hidden penumbra of the constitution requires this cannot be seriously entertained.

          The bottom line is that this does not support the kooks.

        Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2018 at 5:20 am

        Chapman Law Review

        Spring 2001

        Spending Clause Symposium


          Anonamom in reply to Fen. | July 11, 2018 at 10:41 am

          Oh, please, Fen. As if, you know, actual lawyers might have opinions on this issue. MILHOUSE HAS SPOKEN.

          Milhouse in reply to Fen. | July 12, 2018 at 2:44 am

          I skimmed it but could not find anything relevant to the topic. For what purpose did you link it? And what on earth has the General Welfare clause got to do with whether the US may own land?

JusticeDelivered | July 10, 2018 at 6:23 pm

There is most certainly the appearance that BLM has been working for a long time to bankrupt ranchers and in at least some cases pick up their land cheap. They have successfully driven many ranchers off their land.

I am reminded of Edward Abbey’s novel: Fire on the Mountain

I’m skeptical of BLM-FBI reports on this topic. Waco is still fresh in my mind (I’m a native of Dallas) and the official version of events was far from completely truthful.

Add to that the recent evidence of systemic corruption of the FBI… It gives me pause.

    sheepgirl in reply to Fen. | July 10, 2018 at 10:21 pm

    You should be skeptical of the BLM-FBI-DOJ reports. The first fire was both the prescribed burn according to the Hammonds AND the one the prosecutors claim was to cover up poaching using the Hammonds grandson’s unreliable testimony, which neither the juror’s or the judge viewed as truthful and was contradicted by the recording of the permission call to the Fire agency which is in the court transcript. There was other evidence as well, hunting licenses and permits whose dates didn’t match the testimony. The whole story was a prosecutorial concoction to turn a permitted burn into a criminal act.

    The 2nd burn was the protective backburn to defend against the lightening caused wildfires. Being prosecuted for that is demonstrative of the federal double standard that plagues the western states.

    Lays out the long history of BLM bullying and overreach in the pursuit of expanding federal landholdings.

      Milhouse in reply to sheepgirl. | July 12, 2018 at 10:02 am

      You should be much more skeptical of the Bundy family’s propaganda, which the article you cite regurgitates uncritically, as if the Bundys wouldn’t lie.

    Anonamom in reply to Fen. | July 11, 2018 at 10:42 am

    And please don’t forget Ruby Ridge. The feds are not our friends, and they lie as routinely.

      Mac45 in reply to Anonamom. | July 11, 2018 at 1:05 pm

      You mean where a wanted felon camped up on a mountain for a whole year, being aided and abetted by family and friends and refused to surrender to LEOs? The incident where two armed members of that group got into a deadly shootout with federal agents, away from the family compound? That Ruby Ridge?

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 12, 2018 at 10:06 am

        The felon was set up in the first place. And the felony the government finally managed to persuade him to commit was of dubious constitutionality, and did not make him a dangerous person whose arrest would justify such extreme measures. But yes, he was not innocent.

Thesr guys were in prison, and hillary klinton is still free.

Jeff Sessions should be locked up in he place.